The culture encourages men to assume a submissive posture and shrink away from the challenges of being the captains of their ships.

Many men are happy to comply. They can sit on the couch, let their wives carry the burden, and pat themselves on the back for having the courage to live by such egalitarian principles.

Unfortunately Walsh then hopelessly confuses the issue by asserting that a husband has an obligation to lead but must not be a “boss”:

I believe that men have a duty to lead, and I believe that there are many, many women who agree with me.

Notice: I’m not saying that the man should be the boss. Being a leader doesn’t mean being a “boss.” But I don’t need to spend time dispelling the notion that men ought to be the boss, because, as we’ve covered, that notion doesn’t really exist.

But calling your wife “the boss” isn’t the only temptation Christian men face when it comes to headship. There is another temptation which Walsh and many other Christian men succumb to, and this is the temptation to denigrate other Christian husbands in an attempt to puff themselves up and gain attention and approval from frustrated Christian wives. Unfortunately Walsh gives in to this temptation in the very same post, denigrating the husband of a woman who contacted him on Facebook:

She told me about her own prize catch; he wakes up at around 11 AM to play video games, meanwhile she brings their two sons to church. Something tells me this is the sort of guy who would call his wife “the boss.”

…I don’t know this woman. But I’m guessing she’d be overjoyed if hubby dropped the video game controller and picked up the Cross of Leadership.

The husband he describes certainly does sound like he is failing to lead his family spiritually. However, aside from Walsh puffing himself up, what is to be gained by tearing this woman’s husband down like this? Note that not only does this make it harder for the husband to recover and lead like he should, it also does absolutely no good for the frustrated Christian wife. Expressing contempt for her husband doesn’t make it any easier for her to submit to her husband’s leadership or increase her patience in dealing with his failings. Instead, it places additional strain on a family which is already struggling, and during a time of rampant divorce. This doesn’t help the husband, the wife, or the children. The only benefit gained by this kind of chest thumping is to Walsh himself.

The problem is throwing other men under the bus feels courageous, and it has the added benefit of being very easy. Undermining the headship of other husbands is far easier and more satisfying than reminding wives (and ourselves) of the Apostle Peter’s instruction to the wives of failing husbands. But the easy path is not the courageous one, no matter how it feels. What takes courage, obedience, and faith is to witness a failing Christian husband and remember that the Bible is clear that husbands are the head of the household, and wives are called to submit to their husbands even if the husband is not leading her as Christ leads the Church.

Unfortunately throwing the husbands of women who write to him under the bus is something Walsh seems to do quite frequently. In another recent post, a woman wrote in who was arguing with her husband over whether she should be trying to get back in shape after having a baby. In this case the husband cited one of Walsh’s previous posts when discussing the issue with his wife. Walsh responded by sowing discord in the other man’s household (emphasis mine):

I’m about to do something that is very rare in my life, and possibly unprecedented on the internet: I’m going to admit that I was wrong. You’re right, Kim. I was wrong. I don’t want to spend too much time rehashing a post from a month and a half ago (which is approximately 40 centuries in cyber years) but I also don’t want to sit here and let your husband cite me as justification to harass you about the weight you gained while carrying his child for nine months.

A little further down Walsh explains that her husband is a jerk:

…if I may be so bold, your husband is acting like a jerk. He might be a great guy, for all I know. I’m sure you married him and had babies with him for some reason. He could otherwise be a gentleman and a scholar, but, on this point, he’s a jerk. I mean, a huge, massive, towering jerk of impressive proportions. You had his child a MONTH AGO and he’s calling you lazy and accusing you of not “working hard enough”? Really?

While Walsh claims this is “something rare” in his life, histrionic attempts to curry favor with women are anything but rare on his blog. In another post he responds to a recently divorced mother who is frustrated with people who don’t tip her at her job as a waitress:

This woman has challenged me to speak out against non-tipping tyrants, and I could not live with myself if I failed to answer her call.

Given his histrionic style, I assume that Walsh is a very young man. As such, it will become easier over time as he grows in wisdom and self confidence to avoid the temptation to curry favor with other men’s wives. Unfortunately we have large numbers of Christian men who are falling prey to the same temptation but lack the excuse of youth and inexperience. Christian marriage and headship is sacred, serious business, and as Christian men we need to be very careful to treat it as such. Standing up for Christian marriage will seldom make us popular in this feminist era, but it is the only faithful choice and is also the loving choice when considering the needs of husbands, wives, and their children.

You didn’t mention his post on how husbands viewing porn are committing adultery. Of course, when some comments pointed out that wives should not deny sex to their husbands, the fits from the “Christianly” wives ensued.

I’m going to rather timidly put forth the idea that we ALL know exactly why wives try to be so controlling: it is to diminish their husbands’ sexuality. That is the reason for every single instance of her being mean, or barking at him, or nagging, any of it and all of it, and no other reason. It is not the case that she “secretly” wants him to argue back, or wrestle with her for control, or spank her. It feels good to her for her to diminish him, not least because she currently wants him to leave her alone physically (I said currently).

The easier way to make her stop controlling is to go Dread, so there are objectively negative consequences for her behavior. Presumably the harder route to the “easier for you” summit of wifely submission is for him to arrange things so that she no longer wants him to leave her alone physically.

I remember a conversation with my junior high school band teacher. He gave me some advice. I don’t even recall what it was, but it contradicted something my father told me, so I mentioned what my father says. My band instructor immediately said, “that’s right, you listen to your father.”

I’m sure he thought my father was wrong, but he also knew that it’s far more important for a boy to have an attitude of obedience to his father than any dispute over one individual issue might be.

People who speak to other men’s wives need to have a similar attitude.

To my single sisters wanting to marry, I do not want to discourage you in any way. But, the truth is that it is harder to be a single woman than a single man as a Christian. Every poll I have ever seen says that single women are generally more mature and responsible than single men. Men are waiting until around 30 years old to marry for the first time, if they ever do. And, they are going for younger women, according to the statistics. Across Christianity, there are far more single women than single men, which means that the odds are not in the favor of godly single women. In addition, for theological reasons, many Christian women do not want to be the dating initiator, asking guys out and taking the lead in the relationship.

Yeah, I give Matt a pass so far on his nonsense–he’ll probably be one of those sad, divorced “red pill” guys when he hits the 7 or 10 year itch, and then has enough time to surf the web to run across Reddit and PUA sites.

But Driscoll has no excuse. He came out and said men are, inherently, less mature and less responsible, based on “polls”.

…I don’t know this woman. But I’m guessing she’d be overjoyed if hubby dropped the video game controller and picked up the Cross of Leadership.

I don’t even play video games, but I’m sick of hearing men being bashed over playing video games.

Video games are this generation’s equivalent of golf.

Growing up I can remember hearing my aunt b******g about her husband playing golf. The guy ran his own business (carpet installation); worked 6 days a week; an 8 hour work day was considered a short day. On Sunday afternoons he played a round of golf with his buddies; had a few beers; and blew off some steam.

He worked hard; he supported his family; and by every indication he was a good dad and husband. But when the subject of golf came up, all that went out the window. He was wasting his time and ignoring his family, because of some juvenile kid’s game. B***h, b***h, b***h.

I see the same attitude today towards video games, and my response is so effing what? If a single man supports himself or a married man is responsible and supports himself and his family, so effing what if he wants to blow off some steam playing video games.

Every generation has had an equivalent activity. The next time you want to deride someone for playing video games, just substitute your generation’s activity (golf, garage rock band, adult softball, bowling, etc…) for video game and you’ll realize just how stupid your criticism of video games is.

@8to12
The overarching principle I mentioned applies to almost all self-described “golf widows”, “video game widows”, etc. EVERY bit of her complaining is for the purpose of diminishing him, so he will leave her alone.

In 1900 the median age for males to marry was 26 (as it was in 1890). In fact, except for the post WWII era, the median age for males to marry remained solidly in the mid-20′s for the entire 20th century.

The median age for men to marry in 2010 was 28. A whopping 2 years older than the median marriage age in 1900. The difference between 26 and 28 is all but meaningless as far as men are concerned. From a practical standpoint, men today ARE marrying at the same median age they were in 1900 (110 years ago).

Not so with women.

The median age for women to marry in 1890 was 22, and it remained at 22 (or younger) through the entire 20th century until the 1980s (which showed up in the 1990 census) when the median age women married started to creep up. And it has continued to slowly rise every year.

It's not men that have been delaying marriage. It's women. The median age for women to marry is now four years older than it was just one generation ago, and it continues to rise.

…they {men} are going for younger women

1) That isn’t true. The gap between the marriage age is about 2 years, and has been about the same size since WWII.

2) The pre-WWII age gap was closer to 4 years. So if the gap is widening, the worst case scenario is that it’s returning to its previous historical level. Hardly a disaster, since marriage seemed to be a pretty healthy institution in the first half of the 20th century.

Bottom line is Driscoll is just telling women what they want to hear. It’s all the men’s fault, even though men are marrying at essentially the same age they did in 1900.

He should be asking: what has caused women to start delaying marriage from the early 20′s to their late 20′s? If he could answer that question, he might actually be on the road to a solution.

What is a good way to respond to men doing this in real-time? Must I stop myself from going all Jurassic-Park-dilophosaurus-on-Newman? Clearly they are doing this for female approval–what is an appropriate way to show disapproval of this type of behavior? I’m not sure how to walk the line without crossing over into being too instructive or masculine about it.

Politely but firmly inform any men who try to insert themselves as spiritual leaders over you that your husband is the spiritual head of your home, and that they should refer any spiritual input they have for you to him.

if you are an older woman, your place in the church is to instruct the younger women. It is acceptable to politely request random men in the church to stop “instructing” younger women as Matt Walsh does; it is inappropriate and he needs to stop doing it.

Growing up I can remember hearing my aunt b******g about her husband playing golf. The guy ran his own business (carpet installation); worked 6 days a week; an 8 hour work day was considered a short day. On Sunday afternoons he played a round of golf with his buddies; had a few beers; and blew off some steam.

He worked hard; he supported his family; and by every indication he was a good dad and husband. But when the subject of golf came up, all that went out the window. He was wasting his time and ignoring his family, because of some juvenile kid’s game. B***h, b***h, b***h.

As a married man, I can attest that in most cases, it isn’t about the golf or the video games per se. The wives don’t give a d-mn what he’s doing for leisure when he’s not working hard and bringing home resources for the family. It is instead that he is donig something that HE wants to do for himself where he is NOT at home catering to HER needs and attneding to HER honey-dos. He is filling his very limited spare time with an activity that does not (in anyway) benefit his wife directly….

@Marissa
I have an easy answer to your question “What is a good way to respond to men doing this [basically acting as if he had the same authority over me that my husband ought to] in real-time?” Treat him like a bad wife treats a yes-dear husband.

What is a good way to respond to men doing this in real-time? Must I stop myself from going all Jurassic-Park-dilophosaurus-on-Newman? Clearly they are doing this for female approval–what is an appropriate way to show disapproval of this type of behavior? I’m not sure how to walk the line without crossing over into being too instructive or masculine about it.

One way is to ask them to empathize with the position this puts you in as a wife. Men who do this think they are being incredibly sensitive, but they aren’t actually considering what this does to the wife. The man he put down is still her husband, and her obligations as a wife are only harder to fulfill with other men running her husband down, encouraging her to disrespect him, etc.

“ The problem is throwing other men under the bus feels courageous, and it has the added benefit of being very easy. Undermining the headship of other husbands is far easier and more satisfying than reminding wives (and ourselves) of the Apostle Peter’s instruction to the wives of failing husbands.”

All of this stems from a complete lack of education of and for men in the church. Men are constantly criticized in Churchianity for failing to be compassionate and “nice” enough. The emphasis is not on doing the right thing, but the thing that shows the most “compassion”. You’re supposed to show that you have empathy for the “wronged” woman. You do this by cutting her husband off at the knees. He is “wrong”; but she is not corrected for failing to submit to her husband even when he fails.

It’s not so much to curry favor with a woman; as it is to show male compassion/churchy bona fides. “See how good and compassionate we are? We are empathizing with a woman who feels bad.”

That’s the one I wanted to post a comment to, but couldn’t find out how. Of course, there’s so much to comment on it’s hard to know where to start. Consider this:

OPTION #3: SETTLE

You can lower your standards to the point that nearly any guy can meet them. Single men and women are prone to have a list of what they want in a spouse that is way too detailed, long, and unreasonable. But, it is also possible to keep editing your list to the point where “godly man” eventually becomes “believes in a higher power of some sort,” and “I respect him” becomes “I think I can put up with him.” This may get you a man, but not a long-term, joy-filled, God-honoring marriage.

Notice how he starts out being critical of women for having a long list of what they want in a spouse, but then turns flips the narrative and makes men look like the bad guys for not living up to the items on the list.

How about instead of focusing on “godly man” we focus on another attribute that every single woman has at the top of her list: tall?

Only 5% of men are 6-2 or taller, so if tall is at the top of her list she has crossed out 95% of men.

Only 18% of men are over 6 ft. If 6 ft or over is on her list she has crossed out 82% of men.

40% of men are 5-9 or under. If she has “no short guys” on her list, she has crossed out 40% of men.

Women talk about men being shallow for focusing on looks, but there’s nothing more shallow than the way women focus on a man’s height–the one attribute he can do nothing about. And women ARE shallow about this.

I’ve got a nephew who, if he was 6 ft. tall, would be a clone of Brad Pitt in both looks and personality. Great guy; great husband material; he should have to beat the women off with the proverbial stick. But he’s not 6 ft. He’s 5-2. He’d like to get married, but because of his height he has trouble getting a first look from women, much less a second.

And what advice would the Pastor Driscoll have for my nephew? Probably to man up, wait for one of those fine girls to jump off the carousel and become a born again virgin, marry her, and provide for her and her two illegitimate children.

Or how about he advise women to have some realistic standards? Like standards that don’t exclude 50-95% of all men?

I started reading that article and immediately bumped into something that bothered me. He starts the article with this:

“These are tough times for godly single women who want to marry.

There are some single women who remain single for no good reason. Some have never married. Some married only to have their husband die. Others have been divorced by a guy who did not appreciate what he had and did not want to invest the energy it takes to make a great marriage.”

Not even judging the overall article, he just said that many widows and divorcees “remain single for no good reason.” So I guess men ought to treat them no differently than never-married women? Does he actually consider them equivalent or is he condemning men for not viewing them as the same even though they’re different? He doesn’t argue one or the other.

Not to mention that 1) previously married women, good or bad, may have another man’s children already, and 2) depending on the circumstances a godly man could reasonably believe that marrying a divorced woman is adultery (especially if there was no adultery on the part of her husband, which he certainly allows for). I suppose he may be intending to say that the women are having trouble finding relationships are good, but saying they are single for “no good reason” implies that men have a duty to be with them. I doubt he would be willing to assert a corresponding duty of women in the church to be with godly men, or that they were failing in some way by not doing so.

And there’s always the odd fact that if, say, a house was on the market and not bought for a long time, we assume there’s something wrong with the house. But if a woman is on the market for a long time and no one marries her we assume there’s something wrong with the marketplace or the potential husbands.

Sheesh. At no point does he make the most basic effort to understand the problem or come up with a reasonable solution. This article is insulting to men, assuming as it does that we are a bunch of stupid animals who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a good deal.

The obvious question is, If these women are so great then why doesn’t anyone want them? But the more basic question might be, Are they great by the reasonable standards of men who might marry them? Driscoll seems not to notice that the kind of woman who seems wonderful when you have her over for dinner once in a while might not be all that great to live with every day.

He also seems to dismiss out of hand the idea that they may have done anything at any point to make marriage less likely, or failed to do reasonable things which would make it more likely. He also seems to operate from the perspective that a good woman is owed marriage purely by virtue of being a good (not to say attractive) woman. He sidesteps the converse by saying, without any obvious reason, that it’s easier to be a single man.

@earl says: Well it’s good to know I’m in the top 5% of something when it comes to men. Not surprisingly though…being tall hasn’t helped much.

I’m tall also (6-4) but I never realized what a huge advantage it was with women until I realized how much of a disadvantage being short was for my nephew.

IMHO (to be blunt), a tall man is the male equivalent of a busty woman in a low cut top. The opposite sex will always give them a second look, because of that one attribute. A tall man is never invisible to women (just as a busty woman is never invisible to men).

@8to12 By looking at the data you provided, I can tell why the argument that men are the one’s delaying marriage feels right, today. Look at the age spread between the genders in 2000. From then over the next couple of years the median ages of men and women who got married were getting closer to one another.Then in 2009, the trend sharply ends and the spread between the median ages corrects itself going back to a spread of over 2 years… still below the historical average.

But to those of us who weren’t adults 20 years ago, I can see why it feels as if men are the one’s delaying marriage.. When in reality, BOTH men and women are delaying things and men are looking for younger wives.

The age spread in 2000 was 1.7 years. Much closer to the 2 year post WWII average.

Women seem to prefer to marry men who are slightly older than they are (2-4 years older according to the numbers I referenced). So, if women aren’t looking to get married till they are 26, they aren’t looking at men younger than 28 as potential husbands.

Again, it’s women’s delaying marriage that has pushed up the median age men marry.

Indeed… That man is “without a chest”. You can smell the pandering from a mile away.

Mr. Walsh does something good in recognizing the obligation to Sunday attendance, but his understanding is wrong.

So, indeed, it is fine to acknowledge that women want their men to lead them… That is what we do when we talk about a woman’s innate desire for hypergamy. But, at the same time, men are not obligated to give it to their wives and a man’s position of spiritual headship is un-negotiable. If a man really is a leader, perhaps he will choose to give it to his wife. But, if he is not a leader, why should he even be considered as a candidate for leading the wife? Again, his headship of the family is not negotiable… But, do we expect all men to be leadership material? Isn’t it true that at a certain level, increased intellect will inversely correspond with spirituality (A.K.A. leadership material)?

Anyone considered a “genius”, for example a scientist, high-level artist or musician has better things to worry about than being a leader to his wife… Yet, if he marries, the woman is still obligated to be dutiful to him. It doesn’t change with the man’s position in the community. In a sense, all Christians are called upon to be leaders of other Christians to Christ. But, this is not what is meant by headship and not is what is meant by St. Paul’s letter to the men of Corinth. As “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of woman is the man”, this means that the position of headship is innate, and must so be understood by Christian men. Must Christ continually prove himself to mankind through a series of co-ordinated actions? Should man so prove himself to woman? Indeed, since most men won’t be leaders in a real sense, but more like well-heeled and polished followers (of Christ), most men are expected to turn to the priest as a community leader, who takes the place of Christ at the altar and also by teaching moral lessons, wisdom, and ministering sacraments, acting as an official witness for God. (This is particularly a feature in my most beloved tradition, which is Anglo-Catholic). The man improves himself in relation to the priest and the wife benefits as a side effect. Also, the wife enjoys the parish life and community experience, all which would be impossible without the work of men who had built the church in a physical sense and built by man’s obligation to other men and to God.

Also, in a more light-hearted sense,a wife should probably be gentler and more sheep-like so that her man may husband her… Just look up animal husbandry to see that a relation between the participants is intended for the non-human animal to be beneficial to the human… So come on wives, allow yourselves to be shepherded by the husbands , then as a consequence produce some good food items, material for clothing… No, really, you are expected to contribute and not be a pest about it!

Seriously, some of these bloggers, such as Mr. Walsh should show a seal of approvability so that nervous woman on the internet can’t validate themselves through inferior counseling… I’m sure that is a logical next step.

I think the bigger problem is many of the critics (like Bill Bennett) were part of the post WWII generation and have that time period stamped as “normal” in their mindset. The fact is the post WWII marrying age for males was a historical aberration cause by (imho) the combination of returning WWII vets that wanted to return to normalcy as quickly as possible and a golden period of American economics between 1945 and 1965.

The US economy started to tank in the late 1960's and crashed in 2nd term of the Nixon administration (for those with short memories, one of the reasons Carter was elected in 1976 was to fix the economic mess Nixon/Ford had created). Notice that when the post WWII super economy ended, the era of men marrying in their early 20's ended also and we went back to the historical norm of men marrying in their mid-20's.

I was disappointed when I read Vox’s post, but I am very glad to see you take this on. Walsh’s writings are those of a mentally dissolute twit; passive-aggressive, convoluted, self-contradicting, and snide. In a word: Girly.

Standing up for Christian marriage will seldom make us popular in this feminist era, but it is the only faithful choice and is also the loving choice when considering the needs of husbands, wives, and their children.

The first time I heard about “Mars Hill” church was a year ago, and I heard a glowing review of him from the authoress of a couple of goofy “queer theory” and feminist books, who teaches women’s studies. (Very often, the people I have to rub shoulders with are good for entertainment value, and not much else). I should have expected a link to pop up here eventually. LOL!

if you are an older woman, your place in the church is to instruct the younger women. It is acceptable to politely request random men in the church to stop “instructing” younger women as Matt Walsh does; it is inappropriate and he needs to stop doing it.

About the same time I heard from the bra-burner about how wonderful Mars HIll was, I was invited by a girl (much younger than I, who I was dating at the time) to attend a Christmas service at her church. I actually came back home and wrote about it in the comments section, right here on this blog.

IIRC, the most bizarre part of that Christmas service was the “creepy” way the pastor was upbraiding the men. It was as though he were trying to game all the wives and daughters in the audience.

It also pissed me off for the fact that I became good friends with my date’s dad. He’s a hardworking family type dude who busts his ass all day, every day, to raise his family. He gets to go every Sunday and have some parasitic piece of shit tell his wife she is too good for him. It is quite surreal to think about.

Christians should collectively reject state marriage. Just don’t do the legal thing. Be married in your church. If even that. Commitment doesn’t require a ceremony. It could be argued these ceremonies are not even Biblical.

She told me about her own prize catch; he wakes up at around 11 AM to play video games, meanwhile she brings their two sons to church.

Hmmm, y’know, I wonder if maybe this church she attends is one of those churchian franchises that draws a large part of its business by shaming men (a.k.a. cutting husbands of at the knees). If it is, the thought of her exposing her two young sons (a.k.a. white knights/manginas in training) to its message is enough to induce dry heaves.

I am truly shocked: The Christmas stamps this year have a picture of a woman and a young boy (I just bought some); no sign of the child’s Father. This is the subtle reinforcement of the preferred family model – on welfare. It just amazes me that they could not work a second female or perhaps an entire village into the picture.

America (with its Happy Holidays and Wonderful Winterval) is I assume saved from all this by your ban on nativity scenes in public places – or perhaps you are allowed that slave-owning Patriarch, Santa Claus.

Christians should collectively reject state marriage. Just don’t do the legal thing. Be married in your church. If even that. Commitment doesn’t require a ceremony. It could be argued these ceremonies are not even Biblical.

Indeed it is not, and the resultant fornication is no less sinful than cohabitation, and Husband 2.0 has no more licence to engage in his sin than an unrepentant fornicator like myself.

Given the laws these days with meretricious alimony, a godly man and women would do well to establish two homes or apartments for themselves (perhaps they can next-door neighbours), avoid any semblance of cohabitation or comingled finances. Wives have always worked and assumed the duties of taking care of the children as well. The only difference now is that a woman can actually earn a reasonable enough salary to not need to depend on a man.

The fundamentalist Mormons figured out how to do polygamy in a hostile legal climate; I don’t see why we can’t figure out how to do biblical monogamous marriage.

The 11 AM video game guy strikes me the same as taking a single Bible verse out of context. You can’t know what it means until you place it in the bigger context.

Maybe he works like a dog 6 days a week, and emphasizes Sunday as a day of rest.

Maybe he married a non-christian (heck, maybe they were both unsaved when they were married) and now she’s upset that he hasn’t changed.

Maybe they are in dispute over church teaching, and he is refusing to attend her chosen church?

Maybe she attends church for social reasons instead of religious reasons, and he doesn’t want to be part of that. Social church Sundays often are all day affairs–Sunday school, worship, and then ministries.

All we have is one small slice of her side of the story: he sleeps late on Sundays and plays video games. Hardly in the same league as adultery, heavy drug use, or physically beating his wife.

The first time I heard about “Mars Hill” church was a year ago, and I heard a glowing review of him from the authoress of a couple of goofy “queer theory” and feminist books, who teaches women’s studies. (Very often, the people I have to rub shoulders with are good for entertainment value, and not much else). I should have expected a link to pop up here eventually. LOL!

There are two Mars Hill megachurch complexes; each with a distinctly “alternative” preacher. Mark Driscoll (discussed here) runs the one in Seattle. It’s Calvinist in theology.

The other is in Chicago (I believe). Their leader is Rob Bell, and I suspect that is the one celebrated in the queer theory books. He is pro-gay (probably gay himself), wrote a book about how there is no Hell, and thinks there are many paths to God. Though I do not believe Rob Bell has ever been mentioned in the Men’s Sphere, he too would not approve.

Still: Driscoll is at least a monotheist while Bell is essentially a pantheist.

If even that. Commitment doesn’t require a ceremony. It could be argued these ceremonies are not even Biblical.

Biblical marriage commitment requires witnesses, weddings provide that and wedding feasts are quite easily found in Scripture. Without some type of ceremony with witnesses, I’d argue there’s no way to confirm or deny the validity of the commitment.

Ceremony doesn’t mean the lavish, wasteful, debt accruing parties that people call weddings these days. But some form of ceremony with family and church to witness is best.

Back in college, they would show a few of his Nooma video series videos during a Bible Study, he was off-putting even then. Everyone seemed to love him, but I couldn’t stand anything about him, including the way he speaks. All of his arguments were incredibly emotion driven that there is nothing of substance to them. He is selling an emotional image and that’s why people like him.

@8oxer “It was as though he were trying to game all the wives and daughters in the audience. “
Slightly ninja’d by jf12 there, but just between you me and the doorpost, this is precisely what is going on, and we all know it. But nobody dare say it to their faces, apparently.

These cult-leaders are all in the same game. They all have a Personal Jesus that they constantly defer to, as he gives them mystical authority over other men. And he just happens to live in their pants. Not in some dusty old book, that any common hobbledehoy can overtly interrogate.

Personally, if I ever met one of these bastards, I’d be inclined to try it on with their wives (if I was drunk enough, or I had a couple of paper sacks with me).

Very astute post. I didn’t get pugnacious from your tone at all. The trouble with Matt Walsh seems to be that he doesn’t have the age, experience, or wisdom to be taking on a role as teacher or elder, even in the form of an internet blog. It takes a bit of living to achieve 2 Tim 2:15

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

I don’t judge his motives, though. I expect he sees the posts you referenced as a means of being fair-minded. I’ll posit he probably doesn’t see the spiritual undermining his advice is causing. He likely needs an older man to tell him “Uh Son, sometimes it’s best not to talk so much.” Now whether or not he’s humble enough to receive said advice would remain to be seen.

We were talking about this in our office yesterday. She is designing a computer language that no programmer would ever use. They can’t use it as it could never accomplish (in business) what is necessary to get things done. So why bother?

Earl asked Is that even possible?I get that you should reject it and what it entails…but the law has the cohabitiation loophole and you are legally married whether you reject it or not.

Thank you, earl. It’s both amazing and disappointing that this has to be regularly repeated across the Christian ‘sphere. While Christians certainly should not willfully engage in or give sanction to State marriage, it is still imposed upon us by the gunpower of the State whether we choose to accept it or not.

To paraphrase a popular saying among drill instructors and prison wardens: Your soul might belong to God, but your ass belongs to the State.

Earl asked Is that even possible?I get that you should reject it and what it entails…but the law has the cohabitiation loophole and you are legally married whether you reject it or not.

It sounds like the right thing to do but in reality, we can’t do that. Marriage is a government sanctioned union (as much as it is a spiritual one.) And life and death decisions are agreed to BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACT in marriage. This is why our government (at the state level) must sanction marriage.

If I am on a resperator and I don’t have a living will (I have one by the by) but if I didn’t, it is my wife’s responsibility to decide whether I live or die (they they pull the plug.) And the same is true for her, if she is on a resperator to keep her organs working, I have to decide if she would want it this way and I have responsibility to pull the plug or keep her alive.

Government sanctioned marriage determines who pays to support children. Now with DNA testing, we could get around this but I’m not even sure if individual states recognize this legally (and I’m not convinced many religions do either!) Marriage is the most affordable way for children to be raised, and not be a “ward of the state.” That is why government MUST be a part of this process.

Why gets to adopt children if government does not sanction the union? How am I responsible for my wifes debts and she my debts were it not for government sanctioned union? Who inherits property from the other when one dies without government sanctioned union? Many of these things are accomplished spiritually feeriker, but there are also secular reasons why government MUST be in the business of marriage.

Elsewhere however equalists are still hard at work. I hear that it is proposed to alter the language of music. There are seven tones in the Major scale and seven in the minor, but as there are five other notes (accidentals) the Major and Minor scales as well as the somewhat defunct modes are to be outlawed as privileged and to be replaced by all twelve tones, and to ensure that no one note gets more attention than any others the tones are to be used in strict rotation or series.

The serialists as they are now called noted that previously there were various cadences including the Perfect (much loved by Beethoven) otherwise known as the Masculine and the Plagal other wise known as the Feminine (not much used by Beethoven). A Masculine (V-I) cadence involved the seventh tone rising to the tonic . It was designated the ‘leading note’. This is clearly sexist and thus in the new system where all notes are equal the ‘leading note’ is abolished.

The inventor of this system has fled from his native Austria to Los Angeles where if you want to contact him to complain you should ask for Arnold (or perhaps it is Ronald or even Roland) at 18-741-951

Good on you, brother. I, too, avoid anything resembling intimate discussions with other men’s wive, but when faced with a situation where I have the opportunity to build the guy up – I always do and in a very obvious way. Occasionally the looks on the faces of the woman(en) present surpass mere befuddlement and approach outrage. That’s how you know it’s working.

It’s easier for me now as I don’t have to worry about offending anyone in my own household anymore with a defense of men in general or a particular man, but I can honestly say I did it back then as well (might explain a few things:).

The inventor of this system has fled from his native Austria to Los Angeles where if you want to contact him to complain you should ask for Arnold (or perhaps it is Ronald or even Roland) at 18-741-951

Apparently the guy was terrified of the number 13–and he died on Friday 13.

@Boxer, Game recognizes Game. Whether it’s Driscoll, Walsh or Hugo Schwyzer, Game adapts into whatever context a man believes he’s socially allowed to apply it. The problems start when he bases his livelihood and reputation on his Game as limited by this context.

Sorry, IBB, I stand by my repeateded assertion that sacramental marriage does not require and therefore should not involve state sanctioning. With the exception of the custody and care of children (and yes, this is a big exception, and yes, the state always will and should have an interest on behalf of civil society in their wellbeing) and the risks in the few jurisdictions where common law marriage is still recognized, every other arrangement between a man and a women can be handled via contract or simple posession rules. If the title to the asset is held by one of the parties, it is owned by that party – period. I can grant power of attorney to anyone I choose to make other decisions, such as my medical care, in the event of my incapacitation. The other benefits, e.g., access to a civilly married spouse’s health insurance, tax consequences, either can be managed in other ways or do not offset the mountain of risks inherent for men in civil marriage in the USA.

State sanctioned marriage doesn’t confer any advantage to a man with respect to obtaining custody of his children vis-a-vis a legally co-habitating father. If either a civil wife or a co-habitating baby mama want to kick you to the curb and take kids away from you (and make you pay for the privilege), they can do it in a New York minute.

As I said, what’s ridiculous is that any new programming language would get interest if it had any utility. If she comes up with a language with an interesting or useful paradigm, it will certainly be used. People figured out that LISP was useful for AI programming, so they use it for that, even though functional languages aren’t very good for anything else. The CS world is quite unconcerned with where things come from, we only really care about whether those things are useful or not.

Most likely, however, she’s going to either end up with a paper that’s big on whining about what exists and short on any actual ideas, or she’ll actually build this thing and end up with something insane and useless. I still can’t fathom the utility of a language where something can be true and its opposite can also be true, but she’s free to prove me wrong.

I don’t get IBB, he wants state sanctioned marriage because it’s ‘best for the kids’ and because family creates less reliance and cost to the state. And yet… the state is trying its damnedest to turn marriage into a mockery…

Marriage doesn’t need a state license, they like to make you have to have one so that they can exert more control over you and your family. It also allows them to interfere and destroy and to bully and threaten parties with their power. No IBB, once again you’re just plain wrong. Communities have been taken care of each other for ages. The government is just an overgrown kid or pig that needs more and more to survive. It’s time for it to die, forever.

Sorry, IBB, I stand by my repeateded assertion that sacramental marriage does not require and therefore should not involve state sanctioning. With the exception of the custody and care of children (and yes, this is a big exception, and yes, the state always will and should have an interest on behalf of civil society in their wellbeing) and the risks in the few jurisdictions where common law marriage is still recognized, every other arrangement between a man and a women can be handled via contract or simple posession rules.

You can repeat over and over as much as you want that sacramental marriage does not require and therefore should not involve state sanctioning, and you’d be as wrong then as you are now. It most certainly does for far more than just possession rules. It is a bedrock critical foundation to civil society, and pilar to Democratic government. The fact that this foundation has been undermined and destroyed by no-fault-divorce does not diminish the importance of government to be part of it.

Digging your heels in when you are wrong shows that you have the same lack of critical thinking skills as Matt Walsh or Pastor Driscoll, neither of those men are humble enough to admit when they are wrong. Neither are you. You are digging your heels in here on a principle that fails fundamentally because we live in a civil society where we are governed. That is reality. Yours is fantasy. We are not animals. Nor are we Adam and Eve trying to live in the Garden of Eden without any other beings, without government. We must live with one another. Government sets up the rules that are outside the scope of God. If we all played by the same rules in the Bible, government might not be necessary hurting. Alas…..

I don’t get IBB, he wants state sanctioned marriage because it’s ‘best for the kids’ and because family creates less reliance and cost to the state. And yet… the state is trying its damnedest to turn marriage into a mockery…

That is a different issue. Yes, you are right that government is trying its d-mnedest to turn marriage into a mockery and I feel they have succeeded. No Fault Divorce makes it a complete mockery. Done. But there is puprose to marriage being sanctioned by the state. We can’t really have “government” (at any level, in any capacity be it totalitarian, monarchy, republic, or pure democracy) without the bedrock of marriage. Our government has failed us (and its getting worse) simply because it has destroyed something that of which it depends!

Our government does not function because too many people IN government refuse to champion marriage in its purest form. Without marriage, there really IS no governance.

“Biblical marriage commitment requires witnesses, weddings provide that and wedding feasts are quite easily found in Scripture. Without some type of ceremony with witnesses, I’d argue there’s no way to confirm or deny the validity of the commitment.”

I googled it quickly to see where the verse is that requires human witnesses. Anyone know? Wedding feasts may be common, but are they required?
It seems the only way to confirm the validity of a commitment is when the couple is on their death bed and they are both still together. I think we have all witnessed enough weddings to know that act of witnessing doesn’t mean squat to whether the couple stays together or not.

With respect to having a religious marriage without a civil (state) marriage, my reading of the laws in my own state suggests that it is against the law for a minister of any faith to perform a marriage without performing a civil one at the same time and reporting the relevant information to the state within 30 days, to avoid a potentially hefty fine. There is, however, no provision for “common-law marriage”, so it does not look like you become civilly married by default against your wishes (a misunderstanding of “CL marriage”, anyway). Therefore, unless you want the “benefits” of a [civil] Marriage 2.0, the way to be married religiously but not civilly, and without getting an officiant fined or imprisoned, would be for the religious couple to conduct their own ceremony, privately or publicly, with witnesses or without, each accepting the other in marriage before God and in accordance with their religion’s understanding of marriage in every sense. True, the state won’t consider the marriage valid and you will be denied the state’s “protections”, but that would be the point. You will have married each other religiously, before God, and that, done sincerely, should be good enough for both of you, and for God. If the state or the organized church want to throw a fit about it, they can. If you do this in a jurisdiction that permits common-law marriages, you will likely be considered married, anyway, and recognized as such wherever you go, but what makes it a common-law marriage is that you both consider yourselves married, but you did not get civilly married (and your jurisdiction still recognizes the marriage as valid). There are nine U.S. states where common-law marriage is still legal. Details here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

And where common-law marriage is not legal, perhaps even better for any couple wanting their marriage to be strictly a religious one, but if this is your true wish, you will need to avoid spending any time together, after the marriage, in any common-law marriage jurisdiction.

I googled it quickly to see where the verse is that requires human witnesses. Anyone know? Wedding feasts may be common, but are they required?

I stand corrected on the Biblical necessity of a ceremony per se, Laura. You are right that there is no verse, and I was wrong on that. But given that it was common in the Bible for the bride and groom to present themselves to the community the morning after, I stand by my assertion that witnesses to the union were required in the BIble. Parents, religious leaders, etc.

Witnesses to a ceremony do not insure that one will honor the commitment anymore now than it did back then. There’s a reason why God said he hates divorce, because it was rampant then too. The idea that two [Christian] people should, of their own volition, declare themselves married without familial or religious endorsement is not only against biblical tradition, but foolhardy.

What is to be done when one wants to walk out? Without invested witnesses it is easy to simply declare that they were “never married” and walk off into the sunset.

I have a strong suspicion that it’s a parody (there’s a few places where it goes overboard), but Poe’s Law means that it could indeed be real.

I love the “fluid mechanics is hard for men ‘because it deals with “feminine” fluids in contrast to “masculine” rigid mechanics'” reference (I mentioned it on a thread here a week or two ago, actually).

Dalrock in the original posting writes:There is another temptation which Walsh and many other Christian men succumb to, and this is the temptation to denigrate other Christian husbands in an attempt to puff themselves up and gain attention and approval from frustrated Christian wives.

It is arrogance, for a start. I have not spent much time perusing the site of Matt Walsh, so I did not know he has been married for only a few years. Some years ago a friend of mine got married, and a year or two later he told me, “Marriage is a lot like dating, except you both go to bed in the same house every night”. Then a year or so after that he informed me that nobody is really married until they have children…that’s when “being married” begins to really have meaning, in many ways, some of them not quite what any man would have expected.

Matt Walsh is only marginally more qualified to give advice to married men than a single, never married man is. In fact, a single, never married man who has learned the truth about women would be more qualified than this AMOGing White Knight. I’ll leave to others any Bible references on whom a wife is supposed to obey, but I’m pretty sure there are no verses commanding wives to obey some semi-random AMOG rather than her own husband.

Yes, both Matt Walsh and Mark Driscoll are engaging in AMOGing in an obvious, and obnoxious, way. It seems to be one of the patterns that some men must engage in – “Well, my way is the right way, and if you disagree you are a bad man“. “And no woman deserves to follow a bad man, so you should shape up, or your wife should ship you out”. Well, ok, that’s certainly the way to protect any given marriage, you bet. Verbally body slam the man and praise the woman, then demand he get up and lead her where she wants to go. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

We see this pattern in online discussions to a lesser extent – some men can’t just disagree on the facts, or on interpretation of the facts, they have to demonize those who disagree with them as bad men. In Driscoll’s case, it’s pretty obvious where this comes from. He’s clearly AMOGing ghosts from his own past, including his own previous self. Matt Walsh may simply be ignorant, I can’t say. But this ignorant arrogance isn’t doing anyone any favors. It is especially wrong headed when it takes the form of “I Am Always Right. Even When I Contradict What I Previously Said, I Am Right, Because I Am Always Right”. That kind of stuff works in a cult situation for a while, but as a way to advise men on how to live, how to avoid problems or solve problems? Nah. It’s counterproductive. And oh, by the way, it tends to demolish any credibility with thinking men on the right hand side of the curve. There’s ways to admit to error, and this is an example of how not to do it, if credibility with thinking men is desired.

If being a brainless, White Knighting steer is the intent, then it works just fine. Or…

When this kind of “I Am Never Wrong” AMOGING is done on a mass scale, by a leader of hundreds, it does indeed begin to look just a wee bit cultish. I may be oversensitive to this, but sometimes when I look at a vid of the likes of Mark Driscoll, Joel Osteen, and others, I can’t help but recall Jimmy Swaggart…or more darkly, Vernon Howell.

Elspeth on marriage:Ceremony doesn’t mean the lavish, wasteful, debt accruing parties that people call weddings these days. But some form of ceremony with family and church to witness is best.

I have stories from various ancestors, ancestresses and relations concerning marriages during the last Depression. A lot of people got married at home by a preacher in front of family, or with a few friends and relations at a Justice of the Peace, and so forth. Some just eloped.

Earlier this year I was a guest of the bride’s family at a wedding that was held in a “borrowed” church for logistical reasons. The reception was held at the house of the bride’s family – where she had been residing until that day – and the newlywed went off to a little resort town for the weekend. The bride’s aunt made the cake. The bride’s cousins assembled various objects for the tables. Marriage on a budget. Both families abhor debt…

I believe I’ve pointed out before that one of the questions a man should ask when interviewing prospective bride ought to include her expectations for the wedding. It’s one of the ways to suss out her real desire – does she want to get married, or does she want to be married.

Tam the Bam slams it:These cult-leaders are all in the same game. They all have a Personal Jesus that they constantly defer to, as he gives them mystical authority over other men. And he just happens to live in their pants. Not in some dusty old book, that any common hobbledehoy can overtly interrogate.

Exactly so, with Morris bells on in fact. Bears repeating from time to time, too.

I googled it quickly to see where the verse is that requires human witnesses. Anyone know? Wedding feasts may be common, but are they required?

Witnesses are not explicitly stated to be required in the Bible for a marriage to be deemed to have taken place, but because marriage is a covenant, it necessarily involves witnesses and some ceremony. Covenants generally required the shedding of blood — which is why the breaking of the hymen was such a big deal and why sex = marriage in the OT framework.

Interestingly the whole scene on Mt. Sinai with the giving of the law and the people of Israel responding is a type of covenantal marriage ceremony being played out wherein God ‘marries’ his people. Understood in this way, it is easy to understand all the later passages in the prophets where God accuses Israel of ‘playing the harlot’. She is basically a cheating bride ‘whoring after strange gods on every hill and under every tree’.

FH said I don’t get IBB, he wants state sanctioned marriage because it’s ‘best for the kids’ and because family creates less reliance and cost to the state. And yet… the state is trying its damnedest to turn marriage into a mockery…

You have remember that IBB is a TradCon/SoCon, which means that his hatred of the State is conditional. As long as his beloved cons control the machinery of the State’s plunder and murder and mouth all the usual conservative platitudes as they DO their polar opposites, then The State = Good/Godly/infallible. Of course as soon as the lib facade of the same Establishment takes its turn at the controls and carries on with the same ame plunder and murder, the boolean switch inverts and the very same State suddenly = bad/evil/satanic.

Ton said Liberals always find a way to justify the state. There are maybe 10 non liberals in the Christian world.

No argument from me on this point, but I’d include self-described “Conservatives” in that category too (even a cursory polling of current Amerikan cons will reveal that almost all of them, like their lib opposites, believe in Staatkraft Ueber Alles).

Simply stated, adherents to both faux ends of the political spectrum have replaced God with the idol of The Temporal State.

It is not a conditional hatred. It’s understanding that there IS a state and the rules the state has apply for a certain reason. Right now, the rules do not make sense and I do not want to live by them (as many United States rules are not Christlike reaffirming God’s rules.) But as a United States citizen, I don’t have much choice.

If you want to go full Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian/David Koresh because you have had it with the United States, that’s up to you feeriker. I choose to try and live in harmony with those who reject Christ to best of my ability (always trying to lead them BACK to Christ.) Quite often I fail, but I am commanded to try. YMMV.

I may be oversensitive to this, but sometimes when I look at a vid of the likes of Mark Driscoll, Joel Osteen, and others, I can’t help but recall Jimmy Swaggart…or more darkly, Vernon Howell.

Although there are, to my knowledge, no surviving audio-video media of Vernon Howell in action prior to his being turned into steak-well-done by Uncle Sam’s Waffen SS 20 years ago, I find it impossible to believe that he could have been significantly more obnoxious than the other more prominent “mainstream” cult leaders you mention.

Why get so hung up over what specifically qualifies as a valid marriage ceremony?

Other than stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, the Bible is mute on how people actually tie the knot. Adam and Eve were married, but I don’t recall any specifics about the marriage ceremony.

Other than the polygamy (which is not found in every culture), marriage has been defined exactly the same in every culture throughout history: the permanent binding of one man and one woman. I think the Bible is deliberately fuzzy on the ceremonial mechanics of marriage, because God didn’t want to do anything that would invalidate marriages in non-Christian cultures.

A Japanese couple married in a Shinto ceremony.
An Italian couple married by the Pope himself.
An American atheist couple married by the justice of the peace.
A couple married at sea by the captain of the ship.
A couple marooned on a desert island by themselves that declare themselves to be married.

IMHO, all these couples are married in the eyes of God, despite the fact that only one of the ceremonies would be considered a Christian ceremony. There is no magic formula. IMHO, pretty much any ritual that is recognized by the prevailing culture (whatever that is) would be sufficient to make a couple married in the eyes of God.

Now whether the government would recognize all these as legal marriages is a different story.

Now whether the government would recognize all these as legal marriages is a different story.

And whether you would want it to, is another.

@John South,

The government does not need to be involved in any of those things – supporting children, etc.

Bottom line, you leave you get nothing.

There is no provision for leaving your husband, you can leave with the clothes on your back if you like.

And that would be the secondary idea, the primary one being that you both are acting according to your belief that civil marriage is worthless and religious marriage is the only truly meaningful kind. Careful, though, where common-law marriage is allowed! The state won’t insist on being part of the marriage, but by recognizing the marriage as still valid in the its eyes, the state will still insist on being part of the divorce.

My position is one of absolute pragmatism, and my believing in its validity derives not from my holding of it. You and I might desire that the state align its practices so as to support sacramental marriage, but that is not going to happen absent societal collapse. And we’ve got a lot of collapsing to do.

I am not even convinced that state intervention is ever necessary. Perhaps it works while the ‘right’ people are in power, but inevitably that power corrupts and/or the wrong people start wielding it.

“These cult-leaders are all in the same game. They all have a Personal Jesus that they constantly defer to, as he gives them mystical authority over other men. And he just happens to live in their pants. Not in some dusty old book, that any common hobbledehoy can overtly interrogate.”

#1 We’re not called to be “Biblical”. We’re called to be Christian. We Christians obey Christ, we do not worship a book.
#2 Christ told the Apostles “He who hears you, hears Me” and that authority has passed down to all their successors. By the authority He gave those successors, they made a rule for His Church that marriages were to be witnessed by one of them (or a designee of theirs–who could be a lay person, by the way).

I think we have all witnessed enough weddings to know that act of witnessing doesn’t mean squat to whether the couple stays together or not.
—lgrobins

Get over your disappointment that the sacraments don’t take away your free will. Your salvation isn’t a once and done thing; rather, you must act every moment to keep hold of it instead of throwing it away.

A Japanese couple married in a Shinto ceremony.
An Italian couple married by the Pope himself.
An American atheist couple married by the justice of the peace.
A couple married at sea by the captain of the ship.
A couple marooned on a desert island by themselves that declare themselves to be married.

IMHO, all these couples are married in the eyes of God, despite the fact that only one of the ceremonies would be considered a Christian ceremony.
—8to12

You needn’t rely on your unlearned opinion alone. Be assured His Church recognizes them all as married. Some of the couples have natural marriages and at least one couple has a sacramental marriage.

I agree with you that this is a parody. The man who wrote it has obviously been reading sites like this one, and the structure of the specifications shows that he knows that it could not possibly work.

But that won’t stop CS departments from using incremental, but never completable, work on implementing it to crank out endless Twat PhDs, once Title IX takes hold in STEM. And I wish I was saying this only in jest.

But that won’t stop CS departments from using incremental, but never completable, work on implementing it to crank out endless Twat PhDs, once Title IX takes hold in STEM. And I wish I was saying this only in jest.

How does that happen exactly? What the professors have different project requirements of their students depending on gender? You think that is going to fly in the business world?

I’ll tell you one thing, many many years ago as a college freshman in the Computer Science department at university, I noticed there were more women in the program than I thought there would be. That all changed after two quarters. By April of my freshman year, the majority of the freshmen women in the CompSci program had either transferred to a more pussy degree with far less requirements for actual lab work OR they had dropped out of school entirely. The meritocracy has a way of clearing out all those who are on the margins.

You’d be surprised at some of the stuff they are able to get away with in CS. (There are BAs in CS now.) Anyhow, plenty of universities have female-only scholarships (but not male-only, because that would be sexist), and a surplus of students doing absolutely useless work (the only people citing their work are themselves). Trying to apply “feminist theory” to network topology (for example) is stupid, but that’s what we’re going to get more of.

I understand that there are female only scholarships. But that doesn’t mean that the work they are doing while under scholarship will mean much after they graduate. Moreover, it doesn’t mean that the business world is going to value the work they did while in school.

If someone wants to apply “feminist theory” to a network topology, go for it. Just dont make me hire that person at my firm because I probably can’t use them.

Sunshine Mary in Alexa rankings now surpassed by Eighthrising
(with links to the Matt Walsh blog)

(Jenny Erikson blog presence connected with the Matt Walsh blog)
What entities are funding the viral growth of Eighthrising?
What entities are funding the ‘Jenny Erikson’ divorce prep narrative?
For what reasons?

Do any of you like women at all? Comments about women just like to complain, denigrating a female programmer (how does this relate to this article exactly?)
A nagging woman is an unhappy woman. If you are married and want to stay married, perhaps you should logically analyze whether any of her complaints have merit. Of course, you should be able to go golfing, play video games, etc – whatever you need to de-stress and enjoy the life you are working so hard for. How are you going about meeting your needs though? At the expense of her and your family’s needs? Take my family for example, we own a house, I work and we have children. I simply need him to do his share and try and coordinate our schedules so BOTH he and I get down time. If I simply decided to disappear for the day playing golf, or whatever myself without checking with my family’s schedule, it would be a selfish thing for me to do, no matter how much “I earned it.”
People depend on me, that’s the choice I made in getting married and having kids. Compromising, negotiating and working together are imperative traits in a happy marriage. Men should view their marriages as a company in my view. No company runs well when employees don’t pull their weight and their employees just do what and when they want. If your wife has a honey-do list, it’s probably because your oblivious to all the things that are needed to be done. In my book, that casts her in a “mommy” type role towards her husband and is a guaranteed way to diminish her respect.
Frankly, if you want to do what you want, when you want and don’t want to have to consider another’s needs, don’t get married and/or have kids.

As stated above: “Being a leader doesn’t mean being a “boss.”” Could someone explain the difference to me please. Seems to me, the complimentarian crowd redefines many common English words including “submit” and “helper.” When someone is a leader, others follow them. Their “sheep” (pretty obvious what that means) do what they are lead to do and if they don’t, well, they’re considered rebellious, contentious….and w/respect to wives/women, a million other derogatory epithets.

Feminism is not about women wanting to dominate men, gain power over men (in a power grab and/or in revenge for thousands of years of Patriarchy). Nope. You’re missing the point. Feminism is simply about women being offered the opportunity to do things other than make babies and be housewives. Many many many many many women enjoy having careers AND families. Laws that enable women to do this are what feminists (males and females) try to accomplish. True, men and women are not exactly the same but they sure has hell have equal brains and many of the same interests. This ridged idea of what roles men and women can play in society is soul-sucking. The most successful marriages I’ve seen are between two people who allow each other to be all they can be–IN AND OUT OF THE HOME.

Seems to me, the complimentarian crowd redefines many common English words including “submit” and “helper.”

Many people try to sit on the fence or walk on both sides at the same time. The fact is that those words mean what they mean and the Bible says what it says. You either agree or not.

Feminism is not about women wanting to dominate men, gain power over men

Feminism IS all about getting the perceived best for women at the expense of everyone else. It was a lie from the beginning and it is a lie today. What you consider derogatory was once thought noble and rewarding. What you call equal choice is just special privileges for adult females.

Standards are lowered and quotas are met, and instead of submitting to a loving husband you submit to someone else at the office, hospital, or where ever. What you refer to as soul sucking was a lynch pin for a once strong and stable society. That strength and stability is gone now, and all that remains is a feeble semblance of our former selves.

” for my people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
broken cisterns that can hold no water.”

Two more feminists grace the blog with their presence: Lynn on the 23rd (begins with shaming – what Female programmer? none mentioned that I can see) and Karley on the 25th (with a variety of ‘Let them eat cake’).

Both fairly incomprehensible. I predict more arriving shortly on this thread – usually a sign that Dalrock has once again hit a nerve.

Something else I have often noticed – a difference between men and women – most men when choosing a pseudonym for Blogs come up with something which can never be a Christian name and is often rather witty (Anonymous Reader, Cautiously Pessimistic, The Fifth Horseman, Innocent Bystander Boston) but women nearly always use a Christian name – perhaps their own – as above with Lynn and Karley.

Does this suggest a lack of imagination (there are many Lynns and Carleys)? Men tend to introduce themselves with their surnames (the name is Bond) it preserves a distance and formality and avoids being taken in – which is perhaps why men shake hands on first meeting to diffuse enmity. Women are always instant best friends forever: Is that why Lynn and Karley are already signalling familiarity?

It is always helpful to know who you are dealing with: a woman calling herself (say) Anonymous Reader would be hiding her sex, which, as one would assume maleness, would be misleading. Men and women are not the same and as can be seen from Lynn and Karley men and women have different priorities.

I understand that there are female only scholarships. But that doesn’t mean that the work they are doing while under scholarship will mean much after they graduate. Moreover, it doesn’t mean that the business world is going to value the work they did while in school.

Sorta related… It is not uncommon for female students to declare a major in a hard science while fulfilling the requirements of a major in the liberal arts.

I knew a student who had a “women in STEM” scholarship, who graduated last year with a dual degree in History and Women’s Studies. She’s now in a rather good law school. She took a couple of math/science classes every year, which counted as electives, but otherwise she said one thing and did another, to get all that free money. She is by no means an anomaly.

If you are married and want to stay married, perhaps you should logically analyze whether any of her complaints have merit.

LOL! Have you ever listened to what the average wife complains about? Now that was funny. And what makes you think that what she vocalizes is really what’s bothering her? You really don’t know of what you speak.

There is a saying I read every once in a while: “Just because you are a woman does not mean you know how a woman thinks”. Its either that or you do know and are being dishonest.

As you probably already know, most divorces are initiated by women and for silly reasons (I’m – unhappy, don’t love you any more, need to find myself, ect.). Do you actually think these women were justified in blowing their families apart because they weren’t happy?

I simply need him to do his share and try and coordinate our schedules so BOTH he and I get down time.

And who decides what his share is? Why you of course. This is another example of why I agree with those who say there is no such thing as an egalitarian household.

If your wife has a honey-do list, it’s probably because your oblivious to all the things that are needed to be done.

True to the narrative (man bad, woman good) with this one. Of course women just automatically ‘know’ what and when something needs to be done and guys don’t. How does a guy know when he is out of line? When a woman tells him of course.

Here’s my take on the honey-do list:
If a wife has a honey-do list it’s because
1) She is usurping the husbands authority in the home.
2) He is either unwilling or unable to stop her.

What on earth has Maths/Science to do with learning the law – or for that matter History or Women’s Studies? Law is hardly demanding in a Stem sense, indeed it is absolutely straight forward, though I grant those unfamiliar with it seem to have the greatest difficulty finding which was is up (legally speaking).

Law is a soft option which is why so many girls go in for it – practising it however is another matter and requires skills that are not and cannot be taught at Law School – and which are quantifiably un-measurable.

I don’t know what uni life is like in the UK. In USA/Canada, kids generally aren’t required to declare their major for a couple of years after starting school. Even then, declaration is something of a formality. One can “declare” themselves an engineering major, while taking no engineering courses, ever, with no oversight or consequence. They’re given a scholarship on the merits of little more than an informal claim that they’re working on this degree or that one.

The day the students apply to graduate, they wander over to the registrar and “change” their major to whatever they’ve actually been studying. So long and thanks for all the dough. It’s a huge loophole that nobody really cares enough to fix. I don’t care about it either, mind you. I just notice these things and chuckle about them.

It is, I deduce, a little different in England. Those who read law tend to so from the age of eighteen – rather than acquire a degree in some other unrelated subject first; actually all other subjects are unrelated to Law and no subject first mastered will assist in learning law.

One day I went into my local Building Society [Savings and Loans]. The overweight female-teller had her business cards on the desk and I saw that she had the Degree of Bachelor of Science, and this is how our conversation proceeded:

Opus: How does a person with a Bachelor’s Degree in Science come to be working as a Bank Teller?

Embarrassed Over-weight Teller: It’s in Sociology – at The University of Bristol Sociology is regarded as Science.

Opus: … and so it is.

There is a persistent rumour in England that American First Degrees are equivalent to A’ Levels – but that cannot be true, surely. The main advantage of Law (as a discipline) is that it forces one to think clearly.

In some universities, a student must take courses as stipulated by the department responsible for the degree the student is interested in (e.g. Engineering requires such-and-such courses to be completed in x year). In other words, some universities do not have that loophole for many fields. Other departments may not stipulate until the student applies to graduate.

—

Re: womyn’s studies

I’ve seen people who “think the right way” have upwards of 15% of their degree requirements waived (“life experience” or something of that sort).

Never had a honey do list, don’t need it. My husband’s a hard worker and does what needs to be done. He’s someone to respect.

I definitely don’t determine what our “share” is. My husband would never put up with that!

As to complaints, I suggested using logic, to evaluate whether they had merit remember? Obviously if they are silly, then logically they wouldn’t be valid. Most of the time when someone complains, they just want to be heard anyway.

Guys, women are filing for divorce more than men for their ‘silly reasons.’ They might be wrong to do so, but they are. No, I don’t know what all women think. I know what myself and my woman friends think. It can’t hurt to consider what I have to say. Besides, I would never think women good, men bad. That’s so very simplistic.

If I want to improve my marriage in say the bed room, whose advice do you think I’d consider higher – a man or a girl friend? A man of course. And not just the bed room, either. But that’s ok, feel free to disregard my opinion. It’s just an opinion.

And no, I still don’t see what a woman programmer has to do with any of this. It’s off topic. Just like ‘womanzz studies.’

OK, so game didn’t help you. Being in the top of men in height didn’t help you. Your obviously superior intelligence didn’t help you. I call bullcrap because yes they did. Your interactions with women are many times better than if you did not have these advantages. The Lord is not obligated to give you everything no matter how hard you pray and He’s not going to make it rain virgins. Sometimes you have to be the one to reach for it. The Lord helps those who help themselves.

@Marissa: “What is a good way to respond to men doing this in real-time? Must I stop myself from going all Jurassic-Park-dilophosaurus-on-Newman? Clearly they are doing this for female approval–what is an appropriate way to show disapproval of this type of behavior? ”

It is a shame for a woman to speak up in church. There are no instructions about arranging a private meeting with the offender and speaking your piece after Church. Dalrock pointed the way for you.

In fact, just to be controversial, I believe this entire passage written by Paul is non-binding Scripture. Paul says as much: “I do not allow a woman to…..blah blah.” He did not say “The Lord instructs you to exclude women and blah blah.” This is just the way Paul does it and he practically invites other approaches. Some of you are way dogmatic. In other letters Paul names women and tells them- in the letter written to the entire church to “try to get along with each other.” Suggesting rather strongly that women played a part in churches and they were not always “silent.”

““Christians should collectively reject state marriage.”

Amen. I have said it before and nobody has ever seriously refuted me. The institution of Biblical marriage DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS SOCIETY. We can only make do with what is available, be faithful to our (current) butthexgameslut looolllolololzzlzolzzlolzzz and pray.

When the temple was destroyed for thousands of years the Jews made do with what they had and made sacrifices where and when they could. They did the best job they could, and prayed.

When they couldn’t eat Kosher food in Spain the Jews didn’t all starve.

And today when marriage is not even a shadow of the Biblical version but more like a Frankenstein’s monster I believe God will not punish good men who did the best they could in impossible circumstances. Everything that was good and wholesome about marriage 1.0 was identified as part of the patriarchy and systematically destroyed. Male headship. Respect for the leader of the family. Protection of women and children. All gone with a series of calculated judicial and legislative decisions along with massive social change (read anti-male media bias). All that is left is Dread Game. That is where we married guys can make our final stand except even Dalrock rejects hard Dread so what are we to do?

@IBB (Feminine Version) on marriage: “It most certainly does for far more than just possession rules. It is a bedrock critical foundation to civil society, and pilar to Democratic government.”

WE DON’T CARE. This “Democratic government” and our so called civil society can burn to the ground. We are so far away from God’s way that this country cannot be saved. Perhaps a section can break off and reform a nation with values focusing on the family but sadly that section will probably pledge loyalty to ISIS rather than be run by warriors for the true God of Abraham. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy watching Oprah and living the Blue Pill lie of feminine primacy.

The culture is so far gone it is amazing. I wouldn’t be surprised if carrying tampons became the new in thing for High School kids Yesterday I was talking to some middle aged women dropping Red Pills and pointed out 36,000 suicides with 32,000 men. The response from the henhouse is “Well that is 4,000 WOMEN DYING every year.” Seriously! I give up! Done.

@ Elspeth: “given that it was common in the Bible for the bride and groom to present themselves to the community the morning after, I stand by my assertion that witnesses to the union were required in the BIble. Parents, religious leaders, etc.”

What if you post a video on Facebook? If you get more than 2 likes- there are your Witnesses.

@Elspeth: “The idea that two [Christian] people should, of their own volition, declare themselves married without familial or religious endorsement is not only against biblical tradition, but foolhardy.
What is to be done when one wants to walk out?”

Gee, maybe we could have a no-fault based system for those unmarried cohabiters so they would have to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers, and spend years litigating in court at each others throats while encouraging and rewarding the women to viciously use the kids as tools in order to hurt the husband. Maybe we could call it: Frivorce.

What is to be done? The question assumes that what IS being done is good and beneficial. It is not.

Believe it or not, the ability to ‘walk out’ maintains the sexual attraction of the wife in the “marriage” for those of you interested in such things. The “ability to walk out” has far less affect on men and their attraction except perhaps giving men more confidence than they might otherwise have. Thus….the ability to walk actually improves the relationship and decreases the possibility of Frivorce.

Don’t shoot the messenger. If you have a problem with what I am saying take it up with the designer.

@Lynne “As to complaints, I suggested using logic, to evaluate whether they had merit remember?”

Women are NEVER happy. For you to say that women who nag are unhappy is ridiculous. ALL WOMEN NAG. So by the transitive property of the manosphere it is clear that ALL WOMEN ARE UNHAPPY. Congratulations on solving a nearly 7,000 year old proof.

We are reacting to your naïve claims because we know that almost all of those men who tried to outlogic the hamster ended up on the receiving end of a Summons. The hamster eats logic- and craps out new hamsters. We have seen over and over and over and over again on /r/marriedredpill when a man tries to “solve his wife’s nagging” by “solving her problems.” First she stops having sex with him. Then she makes his life a living hell by CONTINUALLY MOVING THE BAR. Then when she gets bored enough she Frivorces him. Then she turns the kids against him.

Put simply, we are done listening to frivolous complaints and nagging or wasting energy trying to make our wife’s happy. We are going to make US happy. Then, if she is good, we will invite our wives on the adventure. If she is not, then she won’t be invited. And as for nagging: Does not compute. Must…go…lift.